INTRODUCTION
In recent months, local governments in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boise, Idaho, have enacted or considered bans on non-governmental flags, including the rainbow Pride flag, from being flown on public property. These developments have ignited significant controversy over the limits of governmental neutrality, free expression under the First Amendment, and the symbolic role of LGBTQ+ rights in civic life. As municipal leaders face public pressure and legal scrutiny, a deeper analysis reveals complex constitutional tensions between expressive freedoms and purported government impartiality.
At the heart of the issue is the question of whether the exclusion of LGBTQ+ symbols from government-owned flagpoles constitutes an act of discrimination or a legitimate exercise of content neutrality. Supporters of the bans argue that government properties must remain ideologically neutral, avoiding the appearance of endorsing any specific political or social cause. Critics contend that such restrictions selectively silence marginalized communities under the guise of neutrality.
Salt Lake City’s 2023 resolution restricted city-owned flagpoles to only official U.S., Utah, and city flags. In 2024, Boise followed with a proposal that may result in similar prohibitions. These moves came after years of cities proudly flying Pride flags during LGBTQ+ Pride Month, symbolizing municipal support for civil rights and inclusivity. While the actions were nominally justified as procedural uniformity, they disproportionately affect symbols of minority visibility.
Legal experts are now weighing in. “The First Amendment does not disappear on government property, but its contours shift dramatically depending on whether the speech is governmental or private,” notes Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley Law School. The distinction between public and private speech on government property will likely be central to judicial consideration.
This article examines the legal foundations, historical background, and contemporary implications of municipal flag policies through the lens of constitutional doctrine, public administration, and civil liberties. It argues that the evolving conflict over civic symbolism reflects broader battles over identity, inclusion, and state neutrality in an increasingly pluralistic society.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The First Amendment Framework
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” This broad protection extends beyond verbal expression to include symbolic speech, such as flag displays (see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)). However, when expression occurs on government property, courts assess whether the property in question constitutes a public forum, a designated public forum, or a nonpublic forum. These classifications impact the extent of permissible government regulation.
Government flagpoles are generally considered nonpublic forums. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that permanent monuments in public parks constituted government speech, meaning the city could accept some monuments while rejecting others without violating the First Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.”
Flagpoles, however, present a more ambiguous case. While permanent displays might be government speech, temporary or recurring displays—especially if made accessible to community groups—may implicate First Amendment protections. Thus, a city’s previous practice of flying Pride flags for LGBTQ+ Pride Month can be construed as having created a limited public forum.
Doctrines of Government Speech and Neutrality
The government speech doctrine permits municipalities to express themselves without being compelled to include contrary views. However, cities must be consistent in their standards to avoid the appearance of viewpoint discrimination. When a city flies a Pride flag but later restricts such flags while continuing other celebratory symbols, courts may interpret the action as impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion (see Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)).
“Government speech is not a license to silence disfavored messages under the pretense of neutrality,” observes Helen Norton, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. This tension is especially salient when municipalities reverse inclusive policies under political pressure.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
As of mid-2025, both Salt Lake City and Boise have adopted or are considering policies that restrict non-governmental flags from being flown on public flagpoles. These measures have been met with a combination of legal warnings, political advocacy, and potential litigation threats from civil liberties organizations.
In Salt Lake City, the resolution to limit flag displays was passed by the city council in late 2023 and implemented in early 2024. The resolution mandates that only the United States flag, the Utah state flag, and the official city flag may be flown on city-owned flagpoles. City officials emphasized procedural neutrality and avoidance of divisive symbolism as the rationale. Yet, LGBTQ+ advocates point out that the practical effect is to end the longstanding tradition of flying the Pride flag during June.
Boise is currently in a more fluid legal state. In April 2025, Mayor Lauren McLean announced the city’s intention to review and potentially revise its flag policy, following criticisms from conservative groups and state lawmakers. The proposal would echo Salt Lake City’s ban and restrict the display of flags unrelated to official government business. Public hearings and stakeholder consultations are ongoing, and the city council has yet to vote on the policy.
Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have signaled the potential for legal action. “The exclusion of the Pride flag—especially when there is a clear record of prior inclusion—raises constitutional red flags under both the Free Speech and Equal Protection clauses,” stated Chase Strangio, Deputy Director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU.
Preliminary legal memos circulated among city council members in Boise warn that inconsistent enforcement or evidence of discriminatory intent could make the policy vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Legal counsel for the city is reportedly revising the draft to ensure viewpoint neutrality and procedural consistency.
The issue has also drawn the attention of statewide political actors. In Idaho, Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prevent all non-governmental flags from being displayed on state or municipal buildings. Legal analysts expect a wave of test cases that could set new precedent.
While no lawsuits have yet been filed, legal observers note that cities navigating symbolic expression must remain vigilant in maintaining constitutional boundaries. “Policies that appear neutral on their face may nonetheless be invalidated if applied in a discriminatory manner,” says Mary Anne Franks, President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and law professor at the University of Miami. If litigation arises, courts will likely examine the cities’ historical flag practices, stated rationales, and the political context of the new restrictions.
In parallel, advocacy groups have begun organizing alternative forms of protest and civic expression, including grassroots flag raisings, artistic installations, and public marches. These efforts are designed to preserve LGBTQ+ visibility while highlighting perceived governmental regression.
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive voices have largely condemned the flag bans as a veiled attempt to erase LGBTQ+ visibility and retreat from civil rights commitments. Civil rights organizations, Democratic lawmakers, and constitutional scholars argue that restricting the flying of Pride flags sends a damaging message that municipal governments are unwilling to affirm the dignity of marginalized groups.
“Municipalities have a unique opportunity to express values of equality and inclusion, particularly in an era of rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment. Removing Pride flags from public buildings is not neutrality—it’s a rejection of those values,” asserted Alphonso David, former President of the Human Rights Campaign.
Advocacy organizations emphasize the symbolic importance of government support for LGBTQ+ rights, particularly during Pride Month. Groups such as Lambda Legal and GLAAD argue that the removal of these flags not only stigmatizes LGBTQ+ people but may also create a hostile environment in public institutions. The ACLU has circulated briefing documents warning that such bans, even if facially neutral, may constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination under Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
Legal scholars underscore the contradiction between the government speech doctrine and the chilling effects these policies may cause. “A pattern of retracting inclusive practices under political pressure raises serious concerns about governmental accountability and the erosion of expressive protections,” notes Laurence Tribe, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School.
Liberal lawmakers have also voiced concerns. In a statement to the press, U.S. Representative Chris Pappas (D-NH), one of the few openly gay members of Congress, remarked, “This trend of eliminating Pride flags from public spaces reflects a broader backlash against equality efforts. We cannot allow a selective definition of neutrality to become an instrument of exclusion.”
Municipal officials who oppose the bans argue that affirming the visibility of LGBTQ+ communities does not inherently compromise neutrality, especially when similar practices have long celebrated other causes, including veterans, indigenous rights, and public health campaigns.
“We don’t achieve fairness by silencing symbols of progress,” said Salt Lake City Councilwoman Ana Valdemoros during public debate. “We achieve fairness by ensuring everyone feels seen and respected.”
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
In contrast, conservative commentators and Republican lawmakers have framed the issue as one of governmental propriety, institutional restraint, and constitutional consistency. From this perspective, allowing cities to fly flags symbolizing particular movements or identities could expose governments to demands for equal access from groups with widely divergent values, including extremist organizations.
“Government buildings are not platforms for ideological expression. Once you allow one flag representing a cause or identity, you must be prepared to allow them all,” argued Ken Ivory, a Republican state legislator in Utah. This reasoning invokes the principle of content neutrality as a safeguard against administrative arbitrariness.
Conservative legal analysts also cite Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), which upheld municipalities’ discretion to curate messages through permanent displays. While the case dealt with monuments, the reasoning applies analogously to flags, many argue. “Flying a flag is fundamentally government speech. Restricting which flags can fly is not censorship—it’s governance,” stated Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional analyst with the Manhattan Institute.
Public administration experts from conservative think tanks warn that cities which appear to selectively endorse progressive symbols risk alienating other constituents and undermining institutional trust. “The role of local government is to serve diverse populations without aligning itself with cultural movements that may be contested,” noted Kay Coles James, former President of the Heritage Foundation.
Conservative civic groups further argue that flag restrictions help restore civic cohesion by limiting the appearance of government partisanship. The Idaho Family Policy Center, a religious advocacy organization, issued a public statement asserting, “Our public buildings should unite us under shared governmental symbols, not divide us through politicized banners.”
This viewpoint has gained traction among voters who view the Pride flag as emblematic of political rather than purely cultural or civil rights agendas. While critics argue that equating the Pride flag with political partisanship is reductive, proponents maintain that cities must refrain from symbolic entanglements altogether.
“The only flag that should fly over city hall is the American flag. It represents everyone,” said Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) during a radio interview. “Anything else risks favoritism and discord.”
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015)
In Walker, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether Texas could refuse to issue specialty license plates featuring the Confederate battle flag. The Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that specialty plates constituted government speech and that Texas was therefore within its rights to decline issuance.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, stated, “When the government speaks, it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. The Free Speech Clause does not require government to maintain viewpoint neutrality when it speaks.” This case reinforces the principle that governments have editorial discretion over the messages they convey through state-sponsored mediums.
Applied to flag bans, this logic suggests that municipalities can control which flags fly on public poles without violating the First Amendment—so long as the speech is clearly governmental. However, critics argue that once a pattern of public inclusion is established, withdrawing that inclusion can carry symbolic and legal risks.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
Although primarily concerned with religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws, Masterpiece Cakeshop revealed how symbolism and perceived governmental hostility play pivotal roles in constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court held in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing the Colorado Commission’s perceived bias.
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that “government must not be hostile to religion,” but legal scholars note the broader implication: governments must avoid selective disfavor against protected classes or viewpoints. This case is frequently cited by LGBTQ+ advocates as a caution against government actions that, even symbolically, appear to target or marginalize specific groups.
VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
Short-Term Implications
In the immediate term, these flag bans have sparked intense local debates that could polarize communities and damage public trust in institutions. LGBTQ+ advocates warn that symbolic exclusion, even if legally sanctioned, may contribute to increased feelings of vulnerability, alienation, and discrimination among already marginalized populations.
Local governments must therefore anticipate heightened scrutiny, not only from civil rights watchdogs but also from citizens who interpret symbolic gestures as indicators of broader municipal priorities. “City hall isn’t just a building; it’s a mirror of civic values. Removing the Pride flag sends a message about who matters and who doesn’t,” said Michael Adams, CEO of SAGE (Advocacy and Services for LGBTQ+ Elders).
Policy analysts also note that flag bans may invite litigation, especially if implemented inconsistently or without a clear procedural framework. These legal risks could generate financial liabilities and administrative burdens for municipalities unprepared for constitutional challenges. Cities must weigh the perceived benefits of ideological neutrality against the potential costs of legal defense and reputational harm.
Medium- and Long-Term Projections
Looking ahead, the movement to restrict expressive symbols on government property could lead to new legislative initiatives, court challenges, and policy innovations. One likely development is the creation of standardized municipal guidelines to govern flag displays, ensuring constitutional compliance and equitable access. These policies may incorporate community input mechanisms, judicially defensible criteria, and sunset clauses for symbolic recognitions.
Think tanks such as the Brennan Center for Justice have recommended model ordinances that distinguish between government speech and public commemorative activities, allowing cities to engage diverse communities without compromising legal neutrality. “Governments can celebrate inclusivity without creating legal exposure—what matters is consistency and transparency,” wrote Andrew Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Center.
On the legislative front, conservative-led states may pursue preemption statutes to prevent local governments from flying certain flags, echoing broader trends in centralized control over municipal autonomy. In response, progressive jurisdictions may codify inclusion mandates as part of their human rights charters or equity frameworks.
At the federal level, members of Congress could reintroduce versions of the Equality Act or related legislation that reinforces anti-discrimination norms in public institutions. While the success of such measures remains uncertain, they reflect the growing national salience of symbolic politics.
CONCLUSION
The bans on Pride flags in Salt Lake City and Boise underscore a pivotal conflict between constitutional governance and cultural identity. At stake is not only the legal scope of government speech but the moral compass by which civic institutions guide inclusivity. While municipalities may legally limit flag displays, the implications for civil liberties and democratic values are profound.
Balancing the principles of neutrality with the symbolic recognition of marginalized communities remains a delicate task. Both proponents and critics raise valid constitutional and cultural concerns. As public opinion shifts and legal challenges emerge, the decisions cities make now will echo far beyond municipal buildings.
“How we define neutrality today determines who feels included tomorrow,” said Sonia Katyal, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. The coming years will test not only the resilience of constitutional interpretation, but the nation’s commitment to pluralism and representation.
Future questions for policymakers remain: Should symbolic inclusion be a governmental duty? And can neutrality ever be truly neutral in a diverse democratic society?
For Further Reading
- “Pride Flags and the Limits of Government Speech”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/us/politics/lgbtq-pride-flag-ban.html - “Why Public Buildings Should Fly Only the American Flag”
https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/why-public-buildings-should-fly-only-the-american-flag - “Public Symbols and the Politics of Exclusion”
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/public-symbols-and-the-politics-of-exclusion - “The Limits of Government Speech and Public Expression”
https://reason.com/2024/05/01/the-limits-of-government-speech-and-public-expression/ - “The First Amendment, Government Speech, and Symbolic Recognition in Public Spaces”
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-first-amendment-government-speech-and-symbolic-recognition-in-public-spaces/